| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
8 July 2009 : Column 299WH—continued
“We feel exposed and we have so few machines; we need more helicopters and newer ones”.
Such reports make the public believe that their Government have not delivered what the troops in theatre require, and such reports betray the meaninglessness of the assurance given by Tony Blair that commanders in the field could have whatever they need. The Minister, who is a good man, will undoubtedly refer to the six Merlin helicopters acquired from the Danes and to the re-roling of the eight mark 3 Chinooks, which have been gathering dust in a hangar for the past 12 years.
Mr. Kevan Jones: That is the Tories’ fault.
Mr. Howarth:
It is not the Tories’ fault. The Government have had 12 years to put it right, and they have been very slow about it. None of those Chinooks is available now, so what are the Government going to do to increase
the immediate availability of helicopter lift, and what has happened to the NATO commitment at Bucharest to create a pool of helicopters available for deployment?
My second point, which the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) wanted me to address, is the exit strategy. I do not detect any discernible exit strategy from Afghanistan. As the hon. Member for Newport, West said, we all know the history of British military involvement in that country in the 19th century, and we need to be reassured that history is not about to repeat itself.
That is not an attack on the Government; it is, I hope, a sober challenge to all of us to understand the magnitude of the issue. To know where we are going, it helps to know where we have come from, and there is no doubt that our experience in Afghanistan in the past does not augur well, although the hon. Member for North Devon was entirely right in pointing out that our mission is very different from that undertaken by the Soviets. I hope that the Minister will tell us what state of transformation in governance and self-sustaining Afghan military capability will constitute success, and at which point it will be safe for Britain and NATO to withdraw.
For sure, there is no way in which we can sustain this tempo of operations for an extended period, let alone the 30 years mooted two years ago by the then British ambassador, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, with whom I breakfasted, as did the Minister, at the British embassy at Kabul prior to his going on the “Today” programme to explain his view. Nor is there any way in which we can create a benign sort of Hampton-in-the-Helmand in the society described by a friend of mine who is a former brigade commander in Afghanistan. When we were discussing the general situation, he said: “If you want to understand this place, Gerald, just go back to the 15th-century Scottish borders”—that is where I am half from—“and you will then have some idea of what this country is like.” We must be realistic about what we can achieve.
There is widespread acceptance that the battle in Afghanistan must be won, not least because NATO’s credibility is on the line, but also so that those who have given their lives in this cause will not have done so in vain. However, we must recognise that it is part of a much larger picture involving al-Qaeda and Pakistan. I suggested to General Richards some time ago that there was a risk that Helmand province would act as a magnet to Islamic fundamentalists—foreign insurgents—who are keen to exploit the chance to hit the West. I believe that I was not wide of the mark, although few agreed with me at the time. That is another issue. We must consider the extent to which it is becoming, as the Leader of the House said, a “crucible” that is acting as a magnet for those forces who perhaps failed to deal with us in Iraq and are now looking to deal with us in Afghanistan before they reject everything that we stand for.
Yesterday, the Government announced their intention of beginning work on a new defence review—an announcement that, given its serious implications for the nation’s entire defence strategy, should have been made on the Floor of the House so that all hon. Members could have the opportunity to question the Secretary of State. That review must be foreign policy-led, not Treasury-led and, above all, it must factor in lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan, and the likely impact that
continuing operations will have on our foreign policy and military strategy. That is the very least that we must do, and I hope that the Minister will respond to the key issues that have been raised during this debate.
3.38 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Kevan Jones): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) for securing this debate. Like the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), I am disappointed that more hon. Members are not present to be involved in the debate.
I pay tribute to the people who have lost their lives. It was sobering to hear my hon. Friend read out the list of names one by one. A difficult job for any Defence Minister is to take the phone call, usually late at night or early in the morning, informing one that yet another person has been lost in Afghanistan, and the first thing I always think about is their families. Last weekend was particularly poignant because of Rupert Thorneloe’s loss in Afghanistan. Rupert worked on the fifth floor of the Ministry of Defence and many of the staff knew him well. I had met him and I agree with the hon. Member for Aldershot that he was a tremendous individual.
I am pleased that Her Majesty the Queen last week announced the creation of the Elizabeth cross. As a Back Bencher, I campaigned for such an award, to recognise the sacrifice that families have made in the defence of this country. It is also important to put it on the record that our thoughts are with those who have been injured in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001. My area of responsibility covers the Defence Medical Services, and I regularly meet very brave individuals who now have very challenging lives because of the sacrifice that they made.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman on another matter. I have visited Afghanistan on five occasions—first in 2002 and most recently about three months ago—and the one thing that always heartens me is that morale is very high. Like him, I pay tribute to the servicemen and women. British youth get a bad name, but the best of British youth can be seen taking a huge amount of responsibility in Afghanistan.
As I said, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West on securing the debate. However, I fundamentally disagree with his approach, although I respect his right to hold that view. He asks why we are in Afghanistan—what the reasons are for our involvement. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State outlined those this morning in his speech. First, it is to prevent the return of the Taliban, which would allow terrorism to flourish. We cannot forget that. The hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) reiterated that point. Secondly, this year, it is to ensure that there is the right environment for the elections to take place. The hope is that they will be free from intimidation and the insurgents will not deny the free will of the Afghan people to decide who governs them. Another reason is, in the long-term, to make space for civic society to develop and to ensure that the security of Afghanistan can be taken over by the Afghan people themselves.
My hon. Friend and others ask what the strategy is. As I said, I have been visiting Afghanistan since 2002 and I have always been very clear on the strategy. We
cannot, as some people naively try to do, separate reconstruction from security. The strategy is clear. It is about ensuring that we achieve security and then bring in reconstruction and governance building, which is taking place. Certainly on my visits to Kabul, I have seen tremendous progress being made. People ask, “Has progress been made?” Yes, progress has been made not only on education, which was mentioned, but on governance and the reach of the Afghan Government across the country. People ask, “Why are we there?” One of the interesting things is that Kabul today is very different from the city I first visited in 2002. It is important that we continue that strategy.
People are rightly anxious about what is happening in Helmand. We have to recognise why, before 2006, there was not a great deal of violence or action in the south of the country. It is because NATO troops, the Americans and we did not go into that area—it was a safe haven for the Taliban. I totally disagree with my hon. Friend when he suggests that somehow our moving into the province has created the problem. I do not think that it has. Our action was about ensuring that we took the fight to the Taliban to secure those areas for the Afghan people, but also to ensure that the Taliban did not have a free haven from which to attack our troops and the Afghan people in Afghanistan and to go over into Pakistan.
I cannot accept the argument that no progress has been made in Helmand. When I first went there in 2006, I flew into Lashkar Gah. Our control in Lashkar Gah extended to the provincial reconstruction team compound and that was it. I went there a few months ago and I also went there last year with the Select Committee on Defence when we went into Lashkar Gah to have lunch with Governor Mangal. The writ of the Afghan Government and our security is growing. On my most recent visit, I went to Garmsir, which was a no-go area only 12 months ago. In many of the villages and towns, commerce is coming back. People genuinely want the peace and security that we all need. There is clearly advancement in relation to school attendance and, for example, the Kajaki dam project, which was mentioned. Has progress been slow? Yes, progress has been slow. Has this been a tragic week, in which we have lost seven people? Yes, it has, but we then have to consider what is actually going on.
I do not accept either what has been said about President Obama’s position. He is very clear on what that position is. The person leading the Americans is General McChrystal. The strategy is to ensure that we secure ground and bring in the development and governance behind that, and that is what is happening at the moment. Is it an intense time? Yes, it is. Is the momentum being maintained? Yes, it is. To say at this stage that we should change strategy is not right; I do not agree with that. Clearly, the Americans, with their uplift of 17,000 people, have made a big difference to the footprint.
I also want to dispel the nonsense that somehow Britain is in Afghanistan on its own. We are not; we are working in a coalition with some very brave individuals and other nations, who have lost quite significant numbers. I refer to the Dutch and the Canadians, among others. A few months back, I met the Estonians, who are doing a fantastic job. We must not forget that it is a coalition effort. Sometimes we think that it is just a UK operation; it is not. The hon. Member for Aldershot asked about
the command. The Dutch are the lead at the moment. In terms of the overall footprint, it is definitely a coalition operation. I would hate anyone to go away with the impression that the Americans have arrived and the UK troops are not involved in current operations. They are very much involved in operations, along with the troops from those other nations, ensuring that we can get peace and reconstruction.
Paul Flynn: Can my hon. Friend confirm the reports that the Americans wanted us to contribute more than 2,000 troops to the present surge and we contributed about one third of that? If that is true, is it not a matter of congratulations for the Prime Minister?
Mr. Jones: Again, a lot of nonsense has been talked about that. I have read in the newspapers that the military wanted increased numbers and the Prime Minister denied them that. That is just not the case. Decisions on numbers are an operational matter. We have increased the numbers for the election, and that includes improvised explosive device specialists, who are needed. The fact is that we are doing a good job in Afghanistan, working very closely with our American allies and others. The idea that there has been a great disagreement between the military and the politicians on that is not correct; there has not. The previous Secretary of State and the present one work very closely, as I do, with our senior military, and it is operational reasons that dictate such decisions.
The issue of equipment was raised. We heard not unusual sniping from the hon. Member for Aldershot at the Prime Minister, but my right hon. Friend, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, ensured that the urgent operational requirements for equipment were put in place.
Bob Spink: I certainly acknowledge that other NATO countries, particularly in the EU, increased their burden in April this year and I welcome that, but can the Minister confirm whether the British Government’s position is now that the burden sharing is well balanced and at an appropriate level, or do they still feel that other NATO countries should take a greater share of the burden?
Mr. Jones: We have always made clear our position that other nations should do more, and they have done more. If we consider the numbers of Canadian troops as a proportion of the total, it is quite high. The most senior Dutch general lost his son in Afghanistan. Estonia is a very small nation, but the Estonians are doing a fantastic job in Afghanistan. We should not underestimate that. It does not help the debate or what we are trying to do in Afghanistan to try to apportion blame.
May I turn to the subject of drugs?
Mr. Howarth: Before the Minister turns to the matter of drugs, may I ask him to respond to my question on helicopters? It goes to the heart of the problem. For the reasons that I gave, we cannot always rely on up-armouring our vehicles. If he could deal with that point, I would be grateful.
Mr. Jones: I shall come to that point in a moment. I want to deal first with drugs.
The impression is being given that no progress has been made on drugs, but Governor Mangal has run an effective narcotics programme in Helmand, working with the coalition force in providing grain for local farmers. Overall, more than half of Afghanistan’s provinces are now are poppy-free. We started with six in 2006; there are now 18. The question is whether it will be a long, slow process. It may be, because we must ensure that we bring in alternative lifestyles behind the poppy eradication.
I shall now pander to the hon. Member for Aldershot and his question on helicopters. I have to say that I agree with him about protected vehicles. Even if all our vehicles were highly protected, we still would not get rid of the potential for injury. We are dealing with a dangerous situation and clever opponents are always changing their tactics. That is why our counter-IED teams and others are working hard to look at the different techniques that are used.
Our approach is clear. The Government not only put in the money, but we make a wide range of vehicles available. However, it is for commanders on the ground to decide when they are used, not politicians. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that using a Mastiff vehicle in parts of Helmand province is not on. First, it would not move; it would sink into the sand in certain areas. Secondly, he is right to say that winning hearts and minds cannot be done from inside a vehicle. Our people will be exposed, and it is important to ensure that we get the training tactics and techniques right. The way to win hearts and minds and influence the local people is not to fly everywhere: there is a case for getting out on the ground.
We have increased the operating hours of helicopters by 84 per cent. We have also brought in some capacity, with our coalition partners, for commercial helicopters to do some of the heavy lifting. Again, we should get away from the notion that Britain is out there on its own, using its own helicopters for its own use. It is a coalition approach, and helicopters are being shared—as we learned this week, when a British soldier was tragically killed in a Canadian helicopter. It is all about pooling our resources and using them in the most appropriate way.
As for the next move, the hon. Member for Aldershot will know that when the Merlins come out of Iraq, they will be moved to Afghanistan. When I was there, I had to share helicopters. People were asking whether we have the helicopters that we need. Yes, we have. The next question is whether they could do with more. Someone said, “We will always ask for more.” However, for the operations going on at the time we have the helicopters that are needed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West asked what is the alternative. I see one weakness in that approach. It is the question, “What would you do differently? What other conclusion could be drawn?” It is clear that if we leave Afghanistan, it will become a safe haven, as the hon. Member for North Devon suggested. I pay tribute to the Pakistan army, which is taking the fight to the Taliban in the north of that country and is having great success in bearing down on safe havens for terrorists. The Pakistan army should be congratulated on that and we recognise the sacrifice that they are making. I do not agree that we are at a stalemate position in Helmand. We are at a turning
point, given the surge of Americans and our strategy. It is all about keeping the momentum going. Is it going to be tough? Yes it is; no one would say that it is not a difficult situation.
I was asked what the end game is. The end game—we are moving in that direction—is to ensure that the Afghan national army, and the police and the Government, can take over security. I pay tribute to them; they are taking an increasing role, including in the successful operation at Musa Kala. The Kajaki dam convoy was supported by the Afghan national army, and it is taking a clear role in providing security for the Afghan presidential elections later this year. We need to train the Afghan national army to ensure that it can continue in that role.
The hon. Member for Aldershot asked about our exit strategy. It has been clear from the start that it is about ensuring that we put in security, bring in development, and train the Afghan national army and the Afghan police to take over security. We also need to put government structures in place that will lead to the sustainable development that is needed. I do not accept the analogy with the Russians drawn by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West. They took a very different approach to occupation. We should not think that the lessons of history can necessarily be used in modern-day Afghanistan or in other situations.
Paul Flynn: My hon. Friend is generous in giving way. He has inadvertently overlooked one point in his reply, but he will be finished in a few moments. Will he give us the evidence behind what he and the Secretary of State for Defence have said today, that there is some link between our presence in Afghanistan and a reduction in the threat of terrorism on British streets?
Mr. Jones:
I must agree again with the Liberal Democrats. The hon. Member for North Devon asked what the challenge is. The challenge is clear in terms of 9/11 and 7 July. We cannot allow Afghanistan to become a failed
state again, and to be a springboard for terrorism. I should not use this word, but it is a little naive to think that somehow the Taliban are not in any way connected to al-Qaeda, to which they gave safe haven, or to that repressive regime and theology which, if it were allowed to gain a foothold in Afghanistan, would sit there and ignore the rest of the world.
Paul Flynn: Where is Osama bin Laden?
Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend asks about Osama bin Laden. The fact of the matter is that we cannot leave a failed state and its entire infrastructure. The Taliban are not only persecuting the people of Afghanistan but exporting terrorism and ideology around the world. It would be nice if they were peace-loving people, but I do not believe that that they are.
My hon. Friend spoke about reconciliation. That is already happening in Afghanistan. When I was there last year and met Governor Mangal, some members of the provincial council were Taliban but had come over. However, that is a matter for the Afghan Government. The clear position laid down by President Karzai is right: if people want to renounce violence and contribute to the peaceful prosperity and growth of Afghanistan, they will be welcomed—but not if they continue to support the Taliban in their horrendous persecution of the Afghan people or their terrorism. The process has to be Afghan-led and some progress is being made.
Is it a hard task that we ask of our people in Afghanistan? Yes, it is; we are asking them to do a difficult job, but we can be proud of them. The influx of the Americans, the work that is happening in Pakistan and the continued commitment of our British forces will make a difference, and we can be proud of that. I have met our forces, both in Helmand and in Pakistan, and they know that they are making a difference. They are proud of what they are doing. If that means not only bringing prosperity to Afghanistan but ensuring that there is no threat against the UK mainland, it is a cause that is well worth fighting for.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |